Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Most of the time they are disallowed from prize support, which is fine by me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Most of the time they are disallowed from prize support, which is fine by me.

That actually seems like a really reasonable way to do it; still lets people enjoy the game but enforces the rules.

The answer is... it depends. By expectation, do you mean a previously determined and advertised requirement? Then yes they should have been disallowed. If by expectation you just mean that it is typical and accepted but not actually a prerequisite for your tourny publicized ahead of time, then no, they shouldn't be disallowed. It all comes down to what the tourney in question actually said.

Did the TO say no unpainted allowed?

Expectations be damned. What was advertised?

If there was a 3 colour minimum limit on that particular tournament then they should have been disallowed because they didn't follow the rules for that tournament. If there wasn't and you just mean there's a general expectation on 3 colour minimum for tournaments (there isn't, it varies tourny to tourny) then they haven't broken any rules and shouldn't be disallowed.

As Kronk said, what was the tournaments requirements? Sure, a lot of them have a 3 paint minimum. A lot don't.

If the tournament didn't set that standard, then there was nothing at all wrong with it.

Sorry I wasn't more clear, but yes, it was clearly stated in the rules.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Sorry I wasn't more clear, but yes, it was clearly stated in the rules.

Then they should either have been disqualified or not allowed to get any loot/prize support.

Sorry you experienced that.

I would have a calm talk with the TO about future events.

Best of luck.

It's tough for the TO, because they can make a painting requirement, but if someone shows up with unpainted models (particularly to an event which requires travel / hotel stay / etc) it's hard to turn them away.

That said, if someone isn't even trying to "toe the line" on painting and literally have a large part of the army unpainted... at a bigger event maybe even if disqualified from the event they would have other things to do.

But yeah, it's a tough spot for a TO to be in... it's much worse for Warmachine & Hordes events (my main game!) by the way.

If the TO stated a rule, he should back it up.

I'm not a fan of flimsy TO's DM's bosses etc that go back on their word because they didn't think they would have to enforce their viewpoint.

Just say "sorry bud, it's clearly written out right here. Next time follow the rules like everyone else." It's that easy.

At it's core, this question gets to one of the central issues of organized play: how do you encourage painted armies without killing enthusiasm for the game?

In my experience, very few people are so upset about unpainted armies that they won't play in events that require them, while plenty of people would simply skip an event that requires paint rather than paint their models. The exception to both is very large events, which usually have travel and hotels figured in. For smaller local events, I think that the hobby has pretty much given up on requiring paint for all but a relative handful of events.

That all being said, I've seen TOs split the baby by allowing the models, but having the owning player suffer a penalty. The most common is that they cannot receive any prize support, or they pay more into the event. I've seen a ton of events where you get $5 or $10 off your entrance fee if fully painted.

the other way is to allow painted armies an advantage. I've heard of events where all painted models have "preferred enemy (unpainted models)," or events where fully painted armies got re-roll tokens or even straight battle point boosts.

To speak directly to the OP, well, I think it's pretty common for an event organizer to back off a rule in order to allow more people to play. It's a level of confrontation and decision making that most TOs aren't comfortable with, and given that many of them are nice guys that giving up a Saturday to watch other people game, I let it slide.

I only expect MY army to be painted (as I will ne'er commit the crime of fielding an unpainted model) when gaming.

I don't hold others to the same standard - or else I'd probably never get a game in otherwise.

Not that I won't silently judge them for it (or not so silently. Jibes about unpainted stuff dying first aren't uncommon).

If a TO enforced the "no unpainted models" rule around here, he'd get no players anyway.

Agree with the others, it depends on the tournament and if the TO isn't willing to enforce the rules, he/she shouldn't be a TO.

On the broader subject though, larger tournaments have a vested interest in painted armies because a table of painted armies makes for better photographs (advertising) and mental images/memories (returning players). It's not just "supporting the hobby", it helps the tournament advertise and grow. No one wants to go to a 50-table tourney full of unpainted models. If people don't attend you lose money, and there is no more tournament.
Also, I believe it is a serious misconception that competitive players don't paint their models. From what I've seen, the top tables at Nova and Adepticon had armies that were painted just as well as lower tier armies. I've been shot off the table by magnificent scatterbikes and run over by superbly-painted superfriends. The "tournament players don't paint" hate is just nerd rage from my own experience.

*Wonders if people would complain at all about unpainted lictors, chaos mutilators, or dreadnoughts.*

 Polonius wrote:
At it's core, this question gets to one of the central issues of organized play: how do you encourage painted armies without killing enthusiasm for the game?

In my experience, very few people are so upset about unpainted armies that they won't play in events that require them, while plenty of people would simply skip an event that requires paint rather than paint their models. The exception to both is very large events, which usually have travel and hotels figured in. For smaller local events, I think that the hobby has pretty much given up on requiring paint for all but a relative handful of events.

Ever since the abortion that was 'ard boyz... I refuse to play in any tournaments which allowed unpainted models. And if I show up to a tourney which clearly required it and end up against an unpainted army, there is a good chance I will leave.

Seeing an army of unmarked grey plastic impacts gameplay as it makes it much harder to distinguish units, wargear and other aspects which are much easier to distinguish with basic contrast of most common paintjobs provide. Also, in my experience, unpainted usually also means proxies.

If it is a training event, or one where people *KNOW* what to expect, so be it. Don't sell it as painting required, and then let "whiny will" in with his unpainted army because you lack a spine and sacrifice the experience of the rule-following.

Locally a player who does not meet the 3 color minimum, with complete bases requirement is allowed to compete but cannot earn prize support. ITC Points, placings will be awarded but no prizes.

This is clearly posted all over prior to the event and adhered to by the TO and players.

Back when GW had stores in Potomac Mills and the Springfield Mall, both in VA, we had a guy show up with an eldar army that was base-coated white. He had taken two brushes and dipped one in yellow and the other in blue. Every model had a blue splotch and a yellow splotch on the white.

His army met the 3 color requirement and he was allowed to play.

I want to play with painted armies. I'm not interested in helping to promote the game unless it is being played with painted armies.

Therefore in my view there has to be some kind of penalty for players who don't have a properly painted army.

I think there are levels to everything.

I see some people say "properly painted" that is an unenforcable standard because how do you define it. 3 Colors and Based? A certain level of percieved effort? etc.

Beyond that there is a difference between a totally unpainted army, and a guy who missed painting a couple of models (I've done this before where I painted 9/10 models in a squad and found when I got to an event one was not finished.)

It also depends on the scale of the event, a local event may not want to require painting at all if it has mostly newer players.

But if required and there is a big violation something should probably done as long as the policy was clearly stated.

Wow, being very new to this and having no idea about the gaming side of the hobby, I'm quite surprised.

I guess my take on it is that if it is clearly stated in the rules that the army should have 3 colors, if someone shows up with an unpainted army, they shouldn't be allowed to participate. What other rules will be overlooked in gameplay if this is allowed to pass? I would imagine that the TO would be willing to stand up to this and should even expect to have to for the Tournament's benefit.

Why have rules?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Wow, being very new to this and having no idea about the gaming side of the hobby, I'm quite surprised.

I guess my take on it is that if it is clearly stated in the rules that the army should have 3 colors, if someone shows up with an unpainted army, they shouldn't be allowed to participate. What other rules will be overlooked in gameplay if this is allowed to pass? I would imagine that the TO would be willing to stand up to this and should even expect to have to for the Tournament's benefit.

Why have rules?

Keeping players from participating in the event is a bit silly. Most tournaments, with a policy about this, state that having an army painted is required to win prizes. If you're playing unpainted you may participate but are ineligible for prize support. To bar someone from playing period feels a bit draconian for a community that strives to be as inclusive as possible.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:


Keeping players from participating in the event is a bit silly. Most tournaments, with a policy about this, state that having an army painted is required to win prizes. If you're playing unpainted you may participate but are ineligible for prize support. To bar someone from playing period feels a bit draconian for a community that strives to be as inclusive as possible.

Oh, I totally agree with you!

If a Tourney does have rules that you have to have a painted army to play and they don't abide by that, that's fishy is all I was trying to get across.

3 colors isnt hard. Primer, metel drybrush.
I had a drop pod that was primed black and had the metel painted. I had one look from my opponent I said "Hey, im on college and my hobby desk is 60 miles away from that. im lucky I was able to paint this much.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't at least get models up to the 3-color standard before a tournament...

Everybody knows that painted models do better

Personally I only go to tournaments that require painted armies anymore because it motivates me to paint stuff, and I need some kind of concrete motivation to paint. Plus I don't mind facing some broke-ass rule exploit if its done with pretty painted models at least.

If there's a specific rule for that specific tournament then it should be enforced. A hard and fast 'only painted models allowed' has the advantage of being easy to enforce, while a 'unpainted armies suffer a penalty' is a little more welcoming. But whatever the rule is, it should be enforced. Otherwise you're penalizing the compliant players by giving them a different product than what was advertised.

Personally I prefer to play against painted models because it greatly enhances my enjoyment of the game. I also find that a properly painted army tends to be a properly modeled army, and much easier to identify and play against as a result. I would never take an unpainted army to a tournament even if there was no painting requirement; I might sneak in an undercoated tank or something, but that's the extent of my transgressions.

The last tournament I went to (a 40+ player ITC event, no less) all three of the armies I played against were essentially unpainted, and one of them was an unassembled mish-mash of proxies. I wanted to give all of my opponents' armies a big hug, they were so unloved. It was a pretty lousy experience, and one I hope I don't repeat.

Most people who play tabletop war games do it because they enjoy the spectacle of nice-looking armies fighting across well done terrain.

Please don't come to tournaments with a painting requirement and ignore this aspoect. You only spoil things for other people.

If you are only interested in the game-playing aspect, you would do better to play board games or computer games. Both are cheaper and less effort.

It takes 5 minutes to paint a small based model. Just do it.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Believe it or not, I just found out this 3 color schemes thing from a conversation on Facebook in a 40K orks group. It started with someone asking if people liked models new or painted to TTQ (table top quality). I asked what TTQ meant, and when I was told what it meant, I posted a picture of an Ork nob with lots of color. Then, that same person who told me what TTQ meant said: "basically... 3 colors, a wash and a highlight."

I typed out: "3 colors? Why not more than 3 colors?"

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: "Most tournaments require 3 colors."

Me: Just three colors? A minimum of three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Yes and yes.

Me: so, the minimum is three colors, but most people bring models with only three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: lol yes.

Me: That...that just ain't right.

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Well it's for the people that just want to play... To each their own.

Me: okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Very surprised to find this out. Especially now, since I've been in the hobby since 2013.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Keeping players from participating in the event is a bit silly. Most tournaments, with a policy about this, state that having an army painted is required to win prizes. If you're playing unpainted you may participate but are ineligible for prize support. To bar someone from playing period feels a bit draconian for a community that strives to be as inclusive as possible.

I don't think it's silly at all, it's just basic fairness. People with painted armies have very likely sacrificed list-building options for the sake of having a fully painted army, putting them at a disadvantage compared to someone who says "I don't care about the store credit, I'm just here to win". So why should the person who is breaking the painting rules be allowed to play at all? Why should they be allowed to "earn" wins, ITC points, etc?

And really, if people can break the painting rules and still play why shouldn't they be able to break other rules as well? Can I bring an extra 1000 points and still play, as long as I don't care about the store credit prize? Can I bring an army from an old codex and claim that you aren't being "inclusive" if you don't let me use those 2nd edition space marines in a 7th edition tournament?

There is no definition of table top quality but it means in general a complete if plain paint job that satisfies basic requirements for a fully painted army.

The "three colours" standard is a reasonable minimum, but most people aim for the best they can do. For example in my 15mm ACW Federal troops, I did dark blue jacket and hat, light blue trousers, flesh colour face and hands, wood colour rifle with metal barrel and bayonet, black shoes, pale grey webbing and kahki blanket roll, with a bit of highlighting on the hat, jacket, trousers, blanket roll and webbing. This is a pretty simple scheme and I was able to complete 72 troops with bases in an evening for use in a display game the next day. It's much easier to paint 15mm than 28mm. It would have been even easier if Magic Dip had been invented at the time I did this bunch of troops.

The difference is that higher standards of painting -- so-called museum quality -- are usually considered appropriate for special display and major character models, such as generals, not for rank and file troops.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Believe it or not, I just found out this 3 color schemes thing from a conversation on Facebook in a 40K orks group. It started with someone asking if people liked models new or painted to TTQ (table top quality). I asked what TTQ meant, and when I was told what it meant, I posted a picture of an Ork nob with lots of color. Then, that same person who told me what TTQ meant said: "basically... 3 colors, a wash and a highlight."

I typed out: "3 colors? Why not more than 3 colors?"

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: "Most tournaments require 3 colors."

Me: Just three colors? A minimum of three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Yes and yes.

Me: so, the minimum is three colors, but most people bring models with only three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: lol yes.

Me: That...that just ain't right.

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Well it's for the people that just want to play... To each their own.

Me: okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Very surprised to find this out. Especially now, since I've been in the hobby since 2013.

Yeah you have to remember that there really isn't a "hobby" singular. Within is collecting, building, painting, converting, gaming, tournaments, reading background, collecting oop minis/books, list building, optimal list building, painting armies, painting single figures, socialising, photography, making terrain, writing articles/blogs on what they have done etc... Not everyone does all of it, in fact you would be surprised how many people just do one or two elements of it.

 JamesY wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Believe it or not, I just found out this 3 color schemes thing from a conversation on Facebook in a 40K orks group. It started with someone asking if people liked models new or painted to TTQ (table top quality). I asked what TTQ meant, and when I was told what it meant, I posted a picture of an Ork nob with lots of color. Then, that same person who told me what TTQ meant said: "basically... 3 colors, a wash and a highlight."

I typed out: "3 colors? Why not more than 3 colors?"

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: "Most tournaments require 3 colors."

Me: Just three colors? A minimum of three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Yes and yes.

Me: so, the minimum is three colors, but most people bring models with only three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: lol yes.

Me: That...that just ain't right.

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Well it's for the people that just want to play... To each their own.

Me: okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Very surprised to find this out. Especially now, since I've been in the hobby since 2013.

Yeah you have to remember that there really isn't a "hobby" singular. Within is collecting, building, painting, converting, gaming, tournaments, reading background, collecting oop minis/books, list building, optimal list building, painting armies, painting single figures, socialising, photography, making terrain, writing articles/blogs on what they have done etc... Not everyone does all of it, in fact you would be surprised how many people just do one or two elements of it.

I'll keep that in mind.

 Peregrine wrote:
And really, if people can break the painting rules and still play why shouldn't they be able to break other rules as well? Can I bring an extra 1000 points and still play, as long as I don't care about the store credit prize? Can I bring an army from an old codex and claim that you aren't being "inclusive" if you don't let me use those 2nd edition space marines in a 7th edition tournament?

I'll never understand this aggressive paranoia about people breaking rules. A person with an unpainted army doesn't see himself as breaking a rule, but rather getting an exception to the rules. That doesn't make him more likely to break rules, although you could argue that it makes him more likely to seek other preferential treatment. Still, a TO can allow an unpainted army, and not really hurt anybody, but making a bad ruling obviously hurts a player.

The reality is that success in life often comes down to knowing what written rules to ignore, or seek exemption from, or weasel out of. It also comes down to knowing what unwritten rules to follow, but that's a different topic.

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And really, if people can break the painting rules and still play why shouldn't they be able to break other rules as well? Can I bring an extra 1000 points and still play, as long as I don't care about the store credit prize? Can I bring an army from an old codex and claim that you aren't being "inclusive" if you don't let me use those 2nd edition space marines in a 7th edition tournament?

I'll never understand this aggressive paranoia about people breaking rules. A person with an unpainted army doesn't see himself as breaking a rule, but rather getting an exception to the rules. That doesn't make him more likely to break rules, although you could argue that it makes him more likely to seek other preferential treatment. Still, a TO can allow an unpainted army, and not really hurt anybody, but making a bad ruling obviously hurts a player.

I have to disagree here because ignoring the painting rule does demonstrate (at the very least) to not follow a rule that could be seen as unnecessary or unreasonable. Maybe they toss out one of their maelstrom cards because "it's not fair because it's super hard to achieve." And on and on...

I really dont understand why you would drop $400+ just to throw down a bunch of grey plastic. You can literally buy a bag of 100 classic dark green army men for like a dollar in a supermarket. Most people are happy to invest a lot of money on minis because they spend time getting them to look cool and create battles that look cool.

In my eyes it adds to the culture of paying to win. Like some have already said, if Timmy has enough money to go out and buy a brand new Riptide/Knight/Broken unit, the day before the Tourney and throw it down unpainted. Then a week later swap it out for whatever else is flavour of the month, then it's not really fair on the players that spent at least a few hours painting up their army to a table top quality. That looked at the newest unit and thought "that looks cool but I wont have time to paint it for the tourney.

It's why people moan and cry about whichever flavour of marine is broken in an addition. If you think Ultramarines are cool and you painted your blue dudes and you stomp me, then that stings a lot less than grey plastic marines that are just using whichever codex has the most broken rules/formations at the time of the event.

I'm not saying that people shouldnt be allowed to ever play with unpainted minis, but at a tourny, that people took time out of their lives to travel to, to meet other gamers, then I want my army to look like its mine.

Otherwise, why dont events just have each table contain 50 tables of all the broken web lists, unpainted, facing off against each other, and those players just show up, pay a fee, use the house models and remove the collecting aspect from the hobby entirely?

 Polonius wrote:
I'll never understand this aggressive paranoia about people breaking rules. A person with an unpainted army doesn't see himself as breaking a rule, but rather getting an exception to the rules. That doesn't make him more likely to break rules, although you could argue that it makes him more likely to seek other preferential treatment. Still, a TO can allow an unpainted army, and not really hurt anybody, but making a bad ruling obviously hurts a player.

It's not paranoia at all. If I'm playing a game against someone I expect them to follow the same rules that I have to follow. But instead we have a situation where painted models are required, but the TO is reluctant to kick someone out and cost them their hotel room/travel/etc so they grant a special exception to the rule. The fact that the TO allows a particular instance of rule-breaking to happen doesn't mean that the rule was not broken.

Nor would I agree with the idea that allowing an unpainted army doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, in the paragraph directly above the one you quoted, I gave a specific example of how it could hurt someone. If I have to leave a unit home because it isn't painted while someone else gets to break the rule and use their unpainted models then I am at a disadvantage. If an "unpainted armies are legal" rule had been applied equally to everyone then my army would have been more powerful and I would have had a better chance of winning. But instead one player has more generous rules available for what they can put in their army.

The reality is that success in life often comes down to knowing what written rules to ignore, or seek exemption from, or weasel out of.

This may be true, but I don't think it is at all the kind of behavior we want to encourage in our community.

Have been to a fantasy event with a painting requirement, not '3 colour' just 'painted' and faced a goblin horde that apparently had actually been painted, with a grey primer the same-ish colour as the plastic.

Only problem I've found with '3 colour minimum' is it seems to gravitate to '3 colour maximum', which is a pity given its not hard to do something simple with these models and make them look good.

If its in an event pack it needs to be enforced though, if its not going to be enforced make it a guideline or request not a rule and be clear about it.

It is rather excessive to assume that because one has an unpainted army that they must be maliciously gaming the system and therefore likely to cheat you. This does come off as paranoid.

If a TO declares that no army is allowed to play unless it meets a certain painting requirement, that is their right as the organizer, and it is also their right to enforce it as they see fit, but I'd argue that it is a counter-productive stance to take. This would only create a point of conflict between the organizer and possible attendees where someone complains that a model is not "painted enough". Running a tournament shouldn't be about setting up conflict points; running a tournament is about addressing potential issues before they create conflict, ensuring the players enjoy their time (and thus ensuring a successful event). If looking at unpainted figures so radically lessens your experience to the point playing is not enjoyable, then perhaps a tournament setting is not for you. Encourage the TO to host a painting challenge instead.

The painting requirement would also not curb any hyper-competitive or even prone-to-cheating players as most of those two camps have painted armies (commission services are far cheaper than even a few years ago). People who want to win, either fairly or not, will make sure to do their due diligence to win. Having a painting requirement doesn't keep WAAC players out; it just creates a barrier of entry for newer players.

There are plenty of folks who have demanding jobs, families, and/or responsibilities that make painting an army a slow process. Escaping for a day to play in a tournament just to be told essentially "you don't invest in this hobby enough for us; you can't play here" is ludicrous. What if they do not have any other variation of the point limit that is painted? What if they just purchased a new unit that has them excited to play, but they just didn't have time to paint it? To take umbrage that some players have to choose to not take optimal units to fulfill the painting requirements assumes that every player has a large collection of possible models in which to draw, which is not the case at all.

This is a hobby, and treating it like anything else only serves to lessen its appeal. Consequently, the hobby doesn't just include painting as there are many players who enjoy the game itself far more than painting models, even if they have the time to do so. By enforcing a strict painting policy, you only communicate to those individuals that they are lesser than others and should not be included in what should be a fun, social event.

All in all, the TO has the fiat to make whatever determinations he/she wants, so if a TO enforces a strict No-Paint, No Play policy, that is on them to enforce or not enforce, but at the end of the day, it is a flawed policy. Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

I've always found that models painted to some degree adds great value to the game. If a player dedicates that level of time to a game it shows a greater commitment and interest. These are the kinds of folks who are the most enjoyable to play against and on average have had better games with them.

On the flip side, I wouldn't want players to discontinue or be barred from events on a relative criteria. Perhaps my take would be a light form of shaming to keep the level of hobby to a minimum.

Quite frankly, the hobby is what separates this game distinctly from a CCG. You can buy an ideal deck for Magic in one eBay visit, but having an army you've painted yourself, whose story Omnibus you've read, and whose commander you've given some ridiculous space latin name just makes for a better experience.

 Cieged wrote:
I've always found that models painted to some degree adds great value to the game. If a player dedicates that level of time to a game it shows a greater commitment and interest. These are the kinds of folks who are the most enjoyable to play against and on average have had better games with them.

On the flip side, I wouldn't want players to discontinue or be barred from events on a relative criteria. Perhaps my take would be a light form of shaming to keep the level of hobby to a minimum.

Quite frankly, the hobby is what separates this game distinctly from a CCG. You can buy an ideal deck for Magic in one eBay visit, but having an army you've painted yourself, whose story Omnibus you've read, and whose commander you've given some ridiculous space latin name just makes for a better experience.

Makes a better experience for you, not everyone shares that view of the game. Please take into account my gallery is filled with fully painted armies. I feel Lemurking fully explains my feelings on this matter.

Usually at my store's events, unpainted is allowed.

However there is the house rule that all painted models have preferred enemy and hatred unpainted models

This has definitely helped curb unpainted armies showing up in large numbers

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't assemble their models and just use empty bases is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't have the newest version of their rules is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they haven't bathed within the past month is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

In the 2001 Baltimore WH40K Grand Tournament (the last that I was able to attend before I left the US), some dude played a "counts-as" Dark Eldar army consisting of WHFB Empire models. They were well painted, but it was nearly impossible to tell what everything was supposed to be, and none of his opponents enjoyed playing against him. So sometimes the TO's should send offending players packing.

 JoshInJapan wrote:
In the 2001 Baltimore WH40K Grand Tournament (the last that I was able to attend before I left the US), some dude played a "counts-as" Dark Eldar army consisting of WHFB Empire models. They were well painted, but it was nearly impossible to tell what everything was supposed to be, and none of his opponents enjoyed playing against him. So sometimes the TO's should send offending players packing.

Well yeah, that was kind of the point of what I was saying. TOs can and should exclude people from an event for the good of the event as a whole, so trying to present "don't exclude people" as an absolute rule is not really a viable approach. We need to be discussing whether painting adds enough to the event that it should be mandatory (IMO it does), not treating "but snobbery!" as a sufficient response.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out. I was agreeing with you.

For the record, I only play with painted models, but I would not refuse to play an unpainted army. I would just B&M about them at the bar later.

 JoshInJapan wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out. I was agreeing with you.

Oh, ok, agreement noted. In hindsight I think I missed the intent a bit.

When I play unpainted armies at tourneys, the following always pops up:

"Oh, I am painting them, so none of my models have arms" - Great. Now I can't even have basic WYSIWYG.

"Oh, these 3 squads of the exact same model are different, but all together... Oh, when you shot, you shot this one model, and his unit is in back, so now you can't charge." -Great, it is like a cloaking device for hoard armies because there are no squad markings to distinguish

"Oh, this is a sternguard/deathwatch unit using similar models, I can't afford the fancy models, power armor is power armor right?" - Great, upgraded units have nothing to distinguish them from rank and file.

"Oh, this big shoota is a rokkit launcha... I hope that is ok." -Great, because they are unpainted, they assume proxies are ok too.

"What? why do I have to constantly re-tell you what these models are and are equipped with? Can't you tell from 6 feet away? You are trying to slow play me." -Great, They have a sea of unpainted grey which is not clear what is what, but I get accused of slow play.

Unpainted models are a burden in many circumstances, and in a timed, competitive environment, it is unfair to expect an opponent to be saddled with a burden which is in violation of the event rules because you see it as 'no big deal' due to 'reasons'.

I won't play in tourneys which allow unpainted models, and if I play in a tourney which had clearly in the rules a minimum standard and the TO allows those people in, if they ever end up across me in a table, I will pack my stuff up and leave.

To have rules and not enforce them to participants is a sign of a bad TO and bait and switch.

To have people who show up knowing they intend to break the rules shows fundamental disrespect to their opponents.

I do not want to interact with either of those types of people.

Plenty of events 'allow' non-painted models, why can't those people go to those events? Why must they tear down all events to cater to them?

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't assemble their models and just use empty bases is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't have the newest version of their rules is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they haven't bathed within the past month is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

Ah yes, the slippery slope boogieman that everyone is afraid of despite never actually having encountered...

Have you ever encountered it?

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

In the 2001 Baltimore WH40K Grand Tournament (the last that I was able to attend before I left the US), some dude played a "counts-as" Dark Eldar army consisting of WHFB Empire models. They were well painted, but it was nearly impossible to tell what everything was supposed to be, and none of his opponents enjoyed playing against him. So sometimes the TO's should send offending players packing.

I was there. The issues were many. IIRC, his counts-as included things like using Galloper Guns as Ravagers, and with their teeny profile compared to the Ravager model, he was able to hide them behind hills and such. That was where he lost any benefit of the doubt from me.

I believe his defense was that he asked the event staff beforehand, but I believe the event staff's defense was that they didn't fully understand the level of counts-as involved until he showed up. I *think* he was more or less DQed.

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't assemble their models and just use empty bases is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't have the newest version of their rules is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they haven't bathed within the past month is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

So, instead of addressing my points, you establish a strawman? Not enforcing (or not having) a No Paint, No Play policy is not tacitly allowing unbuilt models, nor am I arguing that position. I suppose you are trying to win Internet Points by being snarky, but in terms of actually having a reasoned position, this is not exactly effective. You have still yet to address the primary issue that essentially establishing a "hobby minimum" that precludes participation is in of itself elitist and lacks any regard for players that approach this game from a different perspective other than your own. You are setting a clear standard based on personal biases, and instead of encouraging growth or interaction, you are creating an Us vs Them mentality that only breeds negativity.

It is one thing to say that as part of a tournament that celebrates the entirety of the hobby, prize support cannot go to unpainted armies, etc, but actually establishing such a hard line of participation is just being exclusive for the sake of exclusivity based solely on personal preference. Unpainted models do not have the same disruptive effect on the game state or the game's functioning as unbuilt or poorly converted/proxied armies. Unbuilt and unpainted are not the same thing, and creating a false equivalency does not make them the same, no matter how clever you think you are being. This is also true of personal grooming. I suppose I am looking for a whale in the desert though here by expecting reasoned arguments on the internet. My bad.

In terms of people's experiences, namely nkelsch's, this seems more like you played a few jerks rather than an entire population. Again, you won't stop jerks from playing by enforcing a painting requirement to participate; most of my less than enjoyable games have been against players with wonderfully painted armies, but then I am not advocating for a ban on painted armies. If someone is actively attempting to obfuscate units, their loadouts, or what have you for personal advantage by specifically not modeling or arguing where units were that are indistinguishable, that's called cheating and you should call a judge. I've played some whacky counts-as before (on both sides of the table), but I also do my part and make sure there is a set recording of what-equals-what that my opponent has access to as this helps them identify targets and mechanically does impede the game (or I ask to write this down as they are setting up if I have questions about their army).

There is a big difference between a player with good intentions and bad, and assuming that all players who do not paint or model effectively at one point belong to any group is flawed. If someone is using an unpainted, partially built, and/or heavily proxied army and is clearly trying to gain advantage from this, that's when the TO or a judge needs to step in as the player has then proven themselves to be less than sporting, and then there are grounds for removal to ensure that the wider event runs smoothly. This is completely different than flat out telling someone before they even play that they cannot participate. Give people a chance to demonstrate their character rather than making a blanket judgement on all who may fall into your set category of behavior or quality.

Since I tend to avoid engaging in too long of debates online, I'll leave with this:

For players: If someone enforces a strict No Paint, No Play policy, choose to attend or not, that is your choice as a player. My sympathies if this makes it difficult for you to attend events then because I am sure that there are more than a few well-mannered and gregarious individuals who would like to play, but do not have fully painted armies nor a plethora of places hosting events nearby. To others, if you are so angered by unpainted armies or people who do not hobby hard enough for you that you do not want to play a social game with them, then perhaps tournaments or competitive settings where the game is primarily emphasized are not your cup of tea. Again, lobby your local TO or community to host painting challenges or narrative events where the primary focus is on the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby, not the game itself.

For TOs: Be mindful that creating exclusionary policies is typically self-defeating. Pushing players away does not build community nor does fostering an environment where players feel that there is a minimum bar to even participate (which there is cash/time wise, so compounding this only makes it harder to grow a community). This kind of cliquish behavior only isolates your community, and inevitably, the clique will fracture. if you are set on establishing a firm No Paint, No Play policy, please then be sure to have weekly hobby nights where you can encourage players, particularly newer ones, to finish their armies as well as receive hands-on guidance. Lastly, if you do establish a policy, remember that as a TO, you have the right to make calls, but I suggest allowing players to demonstrate their quality (or lack of it) first before making a judgement.

I don't think it's elitist to expect people to paint their armies. Three colours is a very low minimum. I would expect anyone with any genuine interest in the figure wargame hobby to be able to achieve that level. All it takes is a layer of spray paint, weapons, and unit markings, and you're done. Finish with Quick Shade to give a bit of definition and because you should varnish toy soldiers.

There are painting services and ready painted armies on eBay, in case you don't have time or are allergic to paint or something.

There isn't really a valid excuse for booking into a tournament which requires painted figures and turning up with unpainted figures. The TO is fully within his rights to apply a penalty or even to turn you away.

lemurking23 wrote:

For players: If someone enforces a strict No Paint, No Play policy, choose to attend or not, that is your choice as a player. My sympathies if this makes it difficult for you to attend events then because I am sure that there are more than a few well-mannered and gregarious individuals who would like to play, but do not have fully painted armies nor a plethora of places hosting events nearby.

Yes, accept there are different types of events for different people wanting different things. If you want to go to more events,then make yourself able to by painting your models. Until then, go tot he events which you like the rules there and don't begrudge others.

To others, if you are so angered by unpainted armies or people who do not hobby hard enough for you that you do not want to play a social game with them, then perhaps tournaments or competitive settings where the game is primarily emphasized are not your cup of tea.

*sigh*... Troll fail..Strawman... whatever...

So you made up bullcrap about 'hobby hard enough' right after you supposedly said 'different strokes for different folks'. Apparently it is only different strokes if you stroke to the lowest standard EVEN WHEN there are very real, IN-GAME negative impacts which compromise competitive play which have been established, you still try to claim everyone who doesn't let you have your way is a snob or a rage-filled nut? Good Job.

Social activities rely on mutual respect. Disobeying rules, showing up, demanding an exception then forcibly burdening an opponent in-game is the most disrespectful thing someone can do at a tournament. So Why would I want to be social with someone who is basing his existence upon fundamental disrespect by being unable to follow the rules of the event?

Again, lobby your local TO or community to host painting challenges or narrative events where the primary focus is on the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby, not the game itself.

Why do you get to determine what is the 'one true way' to tournament? Why not let some events have painting required and some events not and let people attend the event with the rules they wish to follow?

For TOs: Be mindful that creating exclusionary policies is typically self-defeating. Pushing players away does not build community nor does fostering an environment where players feel that there is a minimum bar to even participate (which there is cash/time wise, so compounding this only makes it harder to grow a community). This kind of cliquish behavior only isolates your community, and inevitably, the clique will fracture. if you are set on establishing a firm No Paint, No Play policy, please then be sure to have weekly hobby nights where you can encourage players, particularly newer ones, to finish their armies as well as receive hands-on guidance. Lastly, if you do establish a policy, remember that as a TO, you have the right to make calls, but I suggest allowing players to demonstrate their quality (or lack of it) first before making a judgement.

History lesson.

There was a terrible dark time called 'ard boyz'. GW thought it would be cool to cater to this extreme 'the game is all that matters!!!' no painting needed group. Those events were a documented gak show and the people who are kept out of well-run events due to minor requirements flocked to those where the problems exploded out of hand. Also, because it focused so much on the game, we had people who would drive to 2-3 locations, scope out which area had the weakest competition, spread-out to have the best chance of winning, and then if they lost game 1, they quit the tourney, only to try it again the next day at another place. Unpainted models exacerbated many of the issues with that horrible format.

People hated it. HATED it. Like it or not, the 'hobby' keeps the social glue together at events. In a game which will have 199 losers and 1 winner, things like painting, modeling, and such keep a large portion of 'losers' invested in the event until the end. Straight up, people like myself refused to participate in such events, and that event died, and tourneys which required painting sprung up to fill the itch and were popular because that is what drew people to those events.

And guess what? Some events which are small, for a small community, do things like 'trainer tourneys' so they can play in a tourney while practicing/playtesting for a larger event. Many larger events sell-out and have a large draw DUE to the painting, so if you have an over abundance of participants, non-painters are going to be excluded.

No one is saying all events must be painted always... but people who say all events must never require painting ever, (Add insults against people who disagree) are disturbing.

lemurking23 wrote:
You have still yet to address the primary issue that essentially establishing a "hobby minimum" that precludes participation is in of itself elitist and lacks any regard for players that approach this game from a different perspective other than your own.

I have absolutely addressed it, by pointing out the fact that everyone sets a "hobby minimum". Requiring assembled models instead of bases with space marine legs glued on them is a "hobby minimum". Requiring WYSIWYG is a "hobby minimum". Unless you are prepared to allow empty bases as an "army" in a tournament then your blanket rejection of "hobby minimums" fails, and you need to defend your argument for setting the "hobby minimum" at the specific point you want it at.

I've ignored the rest of your post because it's just a longer statement of "establishing a 'hobby minimum' is terrible, but tournaments should use the 'hobby minimum' that I expect".

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Speaking as someone who routinely attends tournaments on a both local and GT through Major levels, and a participant with actual skin in the game on this issue, I think revisiting the OP may be in order. Really the expectation of the "completeness" to which an army is painted is fairly subjective. You'll never get 100% agreement on this, even amongst a close knit local group the views on this topic will differ. In the real world of actual tournaments, and attendees of said events, the only expectation you can really have is that which the TO(s) have provided. At which point the discussion of what is/should or should not/is not allowed can begin. With out the guidelines for a specific event to go off of this conversation will always become mired, as it has, in the subjective views of people reading and posting here. Some will always feel their experience as a; tournament attendee, Judge, Organizer, or even as a poster for whom this is an academic exercise is the "more correct" view of the arbitrary topic.

My expectation for how painting/completeness of an army be handled for any event is based solely on the requirements of the event as explained by the TO(s) beforehand. If they state all models must be WYSIWYG and 3 Color Minimum plus finished base or you cannot participate than I would expect that to be upheld. If that event were a GT or Major GT I would have had that expectation already and wouldn't have a problem, if it were a local event I would be a bit surprised at the rigidness of the policy. I may even skip that small event in lieu of another less strict event where I can test out models/units without having to have them fully painted and based. That is all based on my personal experiences and local outlook on this issue. Your opinion of it may be completely different. The problem with this entire conversation though remains that the OP is too broad, expecting any type of consensus to congeal among any of the posters here without a specific set of guidelines to discuss is not reasonable. Were there to be a specific set of guidelines to discuss and debate perhaps more of a consensus could be reached. As it stands though nobody commenting here, from the TOs/Judges through the Players/By Standers, is going to agree because it's all too subjective.

There's a degree of subjectivity. If the standard is three colours and an army is presented with 0, 1 or 2, then clearly objectively it doesn't have three colours. Or perhaps 75% of the figures have three colours and the other 25% are bare plastic.

If an army is presented that has been sprayed gold with a white shoulder pad on the right and a black shoulder pad on the left, the player can objectively say it is three colours and the TO, whose tournament it is, can subjectively think the player is a rules lawyer, but he has to make a call of whether he's going to accept it or to deny it as subjectively a substandard army, and have an argument.

If I was running the tournament, I reckon I would tell the player he's pulling my whizzer and I'm not happy, but I will grudgingly accept the army since to refuse it leaves a gap in the roster. There will be a penalty -- do you accept that? -- if not, sling your hook and I'll get a friend to fill in. I also would make a change to the definition of acceptable armies for next year, and put this particular player on a black list so he doesn't come to any more tournaments I organise.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's a degree of subjectivity. If the standard is three colours and an army is presented with 0, 1 or 2, then clearly objectively it doesn't have three colours. Or perhaps 75% of the figures have three colours and the other 25% are bare plastic.

If an army is presented that has been sprayed gold with a white shoulder pad on the right and a black shoulder pad on the left, the player can objectively say it is three colours and the TO, whose tournament it is, can subjectively think the player is a rules lawyer, but he has to make a call of whether he's going to accept it or to deny it as subjectively a substandard army, and have an argument.

If I was running the tournament, I reckon I would tell the player he's pulling my whizzer and I'm not happy, but I will grudgingly accept the army since to refuse it leaves a gap in the roster. There will be a penalty -- do you accept that? -- if not, sling your hook and I'll get a friend to fill in. I also would make a change to the definition of acceptable armies for next year, and put this particular player on a black list so he doesn't come to any more tournaments I organise.

If the only guidelines given is "3 Colors" than how could you argue that an army, as described by you above, would be substandard? It meets the standard, therefore is not substandard.

 Peregrine wrote:


I've ignored the rest of your post because it's just a longer statement of "establishing a 'hobby minimum' is terrible, but tournaments should use the 'hobby minimum' that I expect".

"Painting shouldn't be required, but clearly the models should be WYSIWYG and fully assembled... It is about the GAME."

"Proxies should be allowed, but clearly the models need to be fully assembled... It is about the GAME."

"Models need to be on the base, but it is ok, if they are in a state of construction, but clearly they need to be real miniature models... It is about the GAME."

"Dollar Store Army men should be allowed for rank and file models, but clearly they need to be 3D toys or models of some sort... It is about the GAME."

"Paper cut-outs and papercraft tanks should be allowed, but clearly they need to be more than flat tokens... It is about the GAME."

"I should be able to show up with flat paper disks to represent models as I can play tactically with just that, but clearly one needs to own the rulebooks... It is about the GAME."

"I write down an army list from a store rulebook and remembered the rules and use paper tokens... Why can't I play? it is Hobby Snobbery!!! Elitist rage-filled neck-beard! You clearly lack social skills if you deny me from your event!"

'Minimum Standard' is like casting a fishing net. If your local scene has about 30 people, half of which don't paint, and you want to run a 16-person tournament, there is a good chance you could fill all 16 slots with painted armies and everyone have a good time. If you want to run a larger event with those 30 people, a TO might need to relax some rules to get the numbers up. TOs know their audience and know what people want... TOs know they are excluding people, and probably sleep just fine at night knowing that.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's a degree of subjectivity. If the standard is three colours and an army is presented with 0, 1 or 2, then clearly objectively it doesn't have three colours. Or perhaps 75% of the figures have three colours and the other 25% are bare plastic.

If an army is presented that has been sprayed gold with a white shoulder pad on the right and a black shoulder pad on the left, the player can objectively say it is three colours and the TO, whose tournament it is, can subjectively think the player is a rules lawyer, but he has to make a call of whether he's going to accept it or to deny it as subjectively a substandard army, and have an argument.

If I was running the tournament, I reckon I would tell the player he's pulling my whizzer and I'm not happy, but I will grudgingly accept the army since to refuse it leaves a gap in the roster. There will be a penalty -- do you accept that? -- if not, sling your hook and I'll get a friend to fill in. I also would make a change to the definition of acceptable armies for next year, and put this particular player on a black list so he doesn't come to any more tournaments I organise.

If the only guidelines given is "3 Colors" than how could you argue that an army, as described by you above, would be substandard? It meets the standard, therefore is not substandard.

I would argue that it's my tournament, my standard and my right to judge entries. That I didn't expect someone to come along having dabbed three different coloured permanent markers sellotaped in a bundle on the head of the model and call it done. That such an army is not acceptable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's a degree of subjectivity. If the standard is three colours and an army is presented with 0, 1 or 2, then clearly objectively it doesn't have three colours. Or perhaps 75% of the figures have three colours and the other 25% are bare plastic.

If an army is presented that has been sprayed gold with a white shoulder pad on the right and a black shoulder pad on the left, the player can objectively say it is three colours and the TO, whose tournament it is, can subjectively think the player is a rules lawyer, but he has to make a call of whether he's going to accept it or to deny it as subjectively a substandard army, and have an argument.

If I was running the tournament, I reckon I would tell the player he's pulling my whizzer and I'm not happy, but I will grudgingly accept the army since to refuse it leaves a gap in the roster. There will be a penalty -- do you accept that? -- if not, sling your hook and I'll get a friend to fill in. I also would make a change to the definition of acceptable armies for next year, and put this particular player on a black list so he doesn't come to any more tournaments I organise.

If the only guidelines given is "3 Colors" than how could you argue that an army, as described by you above, would be substandard? It meets the standard, therefore is not substandard.

I would argue that it's my tournament, my standard and my right to judge entries. That I didn't expect someone to come along having dabbed three different coloured permanent markers sellotaped in a bundle on the head of the model and call it done. That such an army is not acceptable.

You're moving the goal posts here. The army you described in red is not the same as that in green.

As long as you've clearly spelled out the requirements for your event beforehand than of course you're free to judge the painting of the armies as you see fit within your criteria. My point is the criteria you've been providing isn't clear nor has it been consistent from post to post. If I were to show up with an army that sounds like the one in red with the criteria provided in that post and I was judged as being substandard and penalized for it I would take issue with that.

Well, whatever, I said it was subjective. I'm not running a tournament anyway, so I don't see why I should be expected to publish my criteria.

Whatever the criteria chosen, I don't see how I am supposed to judge your army until it is presented to me. If you want to make sure it's going to pass muster, make some effort to make it look good by the spirit of the rules. Don't rely on the letter of them.

Three colours is what most people regard as a bare minimum for an acceptable tabletop army. Most people are saying it's hard to paint under five colours, just from the variety of features on a typical model.

Group 1: My Models will never be touched by paint:
A major reason there was a push of 'non-painting' for a while was because during the end of 5th and beginning of 6th, the META was shifting so drastically with every codex change, people were literally trying to win by buying a whole new codex army every 4 months. For that to be 'cost effective' often the models needed to be minimally assembled as possible and UNPAINTED to retain max re-sale value. This was where the codex-hopping resale + 'ard boys made a real mess of things.

Those people who choose to never paint ever, accept you have limited access to events, or run your own events.


Group 2: I don't want to waste my life on painting, so here is my bare minimum to meet the standard:
Those people are drastically different from the people who simply 'don't want to paint' who want to attend high-level GTs. Those people often showed up with stuff like this:



Whatever their reasoning, from 'I don't have the skill' or 'I don't want to spend the time' or 'this is a political statement against painting', they at least met the standard and were allowed to participate. They at least did that much.

Whats wrong with the necrons and the tanks? (fair enough if you don't like pink, but from that tiny picture those tanks look cool).

nareik wrote:
Whats wrong with the necrons and the tanks? (fair enough if you don't like pink, but from that tiny picture those tanks look cool).

Nothing is wrong with them... they are the minimum standard. That is what people who hate painting but want to go to grand tourney-style events do...

The Pink one dispels the 'I have no skill so I leave them plastic' Myth. This person painted them and now he can participate because a basic paint job can be done by anyone.

The Grey one was explicitly done by a player who claimed he was the best 40k player EVAR but could never prove it due to not being allowed to play because he doesn't paint. So he painted his stuff to a minimum standard and showed up. (and got his butt whooped) but at least he met the standard.

He didn't show up unpainted and demand to be let to participate.

Even from a casual standpoint, if you never say enough is enough lets only do painted models it will never happen. I only get in about 4-5 games a month and realistically I want those to be painted models only. I hate the activity of painting but love the end result and it allows me to pick a unit or tank or whatever and get it done for my next game.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Even from a casual standpoint, if you never say enough is enough lets only do painted models it will never happen. I only get in about 4-5 games a month and realistically I want those to be painted models only. I hate the activity of painting but love the end result and it allows me to pick a unit or tank or whatever and get it done for my next game.

That's perfectly understandable from a casual perspective, if you've set up with your opponent before hand that you're looking for that type of game. This thread is more about tournament play, and competitive play, where testing lists and fine tuning them often calls for playing units/models before they are completed. If I show up to a Tuesday 40k night and want to play a game and my opponent has unpainted miniatures I will happily play them. If I want to play a game where I am trying to test out a new competitive list I would let my random Tuesday night opponent know that in case they're looking for a different kind of game. If I show up to a narrative night and one side has a player with an unpainted army I might not be too thrilled. It all comes down to personal preference and what setting you're talking about. As far as competitive/tournament gaming goes I think the level of event being discussed matters a lot in framing responses to this question. A lot of personal preference is also involved.

I think NOVA allows unpainted model at their GT? I went thru the site didn't see any painting requirements. Basically you Won't win overall but can win best general.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
I think NOVA allows unpainted model at their GT? I went thru the site didn't see any painting requirements. Basically you Won't win overall but can win best general.

I think the requirement is listed in the primer for each event. The last one I read said that painted models were not required but were strongly encouraged.

Though from walking around the floor in the 40k hall the last few years I don't recall seeing any gray plastic.

The rules were that the army be painted - altho the OP hasn't given details of how - and I reckon in a tourney I would have called the organiser (especially if it were a hardcore Tau force!).

Of course this is all subjective. But the fact remains you could use an Army Painter coloured primer, perhaps add one wash, and once you've based the models, then that is good enough. Last fall we played an Apocalypse Game with huge numbers of models, and everyone I could see had done at least that, and it made for a much more immersive game.

TLDR: you can paint an army in a day with coloured Primers. If you can't be bothered to spend that time to meet criteria in the rules, then you shouldn't be allowed to compete.

nkelsch wrote:
Those people are drastically different from the people who simply 'don't want to paint' who want to attend high-level GTs. Those people often showed up with stuff like this:

I'd call psychological warfare on this. I wonder if it one of Alex Fennel's (sp?), like the Jetseer Council Serpent Spam that won LVO 2014?

I disagree, nkelsch. I've seen a 3rd hot pink army, looking the same spray as this. It was Storm Ravens and SM, at LVO this past February:




So, is this really what you say, nkelsch? Or is this a guy who likes to play pink?

I like those pink armies. They've got a well-thought-out, well done concept, and the bases also are nicely decorated.

I'm a Tabletop newbie, like my name states so i really haven't played any tournaments - hell, i haven't even played a 40k match - just a reminder for what i say has to be taken with a grain of salt (or a heap).. but..

This sounds a lot like a certain "requirement of skill" rather than a bare minimum paint job to participate in said event. Just because i like to see my army painted doesn't mean i cannot understand nor play against people who just don't bother.

o/

 EverlastingNewb wrote:


This sounds a lot like a certain "requirement of skill" rather than a bare minimum paint job to participate in said event. Just because i like to see my army painted doesn't mean i cannot understand nor play against people who just don't bother.

o/

The Pink army takes no skill to accomplish and is fine for events.

People who 'don't bother' actively burden opponents with game impacting issues... which during a timed, competitive event is unreasonable, especially if the rules required a standard and the people showed up thumbing their nose at it.

I have a friend who has no skill at painting. None. But he paints every model, painting coats one color, webbing and equipment another, and weapons metallic. Then he applies GW black or brown shade over the whole model, applies glue and flock to the base, and - hey presto! - he's done. It looks fine on the tabletop and it really enhances both the enjoyment of the game and ease of identifying what is what in his army.

I always try to encourage people to paint, because if you think you can't do it you're wrong! Anyone can paint and get good results, and have a much better experience with the hobby as a result. The point of painting requirements is not to PUNISH THE UNPAINTED and cast them into the furthest pit of Hell, or even to make the game easier to play and nicer for your opponent. The point is to encourage everyone to get the most out the hobby that they can and enjoy all of the different facets of it.

It's a positive measure, not a punitive one, and people should treat it as such.

More GTs should get rid of mandatory painting/basing requirements.

Unpainted armies are the least people worry about at a major tourney. Illegal lists, high model count lists(slow play) and other forms of cheating are what most tourney goers care about. I rather play a unpainted army in a smooth, efficient game than against a cheating player with a beautiful army.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Unpainted armies are the least people worry about at a major tourney. Illegal lists, high model count lists(slow play) and other forms of cheating are what most tourney goers care about. I rather play a unpainted army in a smooth, efficient game than against a cheating player with a beautiful army.

Why do we have to choose between one or the other? Require fully painted armies, and keep the cheaters out.

 Peregrine wrote:
... Require fully painted armies,
and keep the cheaters out.

In no universe, does one have to do with the other.

In 11+ years of playing, I have seen 40k cheaters cheat with painted models or unpainted. From teeny boppers to GT contenders (actually one guy in particular, and the whole of Calif. knows his tricks).

The only time I've seen a blank base at a GT, was when there were with 7 other fully assembled models, 4 of which were fully painted, and 3 just bases. All the same Skyhammer squad. The two special wep guys were assembled and discernible. He had glue and was finishing bodies to bases as we played. Great game. Good opponent. I had no issue with the guy.

This : "Oh, no, *those* 8 bases are my sternguard. The bases you just killed are a tac squad. Sorry for the mix up." ... has never happens in any tourneys I've played in. For years.

Peregrine, has anyone in a tourney ever pulled that on you? Which tourney?

 Brothererekose wrote:
In no universe, does one have to do with the other.

Well yes, that's what I just said! The quoted post was a reply to someone who was acting like we have to make a choice between requiring painted models or doing something about cheaters, as if they're somehow tied to each other and fixing one means ignoring the other. I'm really not sure how you concluded that I was arguing otherwise.

Having such a rigid stance on painting doesn't seem good for the hobby. I am pretty new, and I'm slowly getting my army painted, but when I was still in the throes of assembly, I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.
One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

Veryance wrote:
Having such a rigid stance on painting doesn't seem good for the hobby. I am pretty new, and I'm slowly getting my army painted, but when I was still in the throes of assembly, I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.
One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

Alternatively, looking at ugly gray plastic on the other side of the table significantly diminishes my enjoyment of the game. It's not an "inconsequential" thing at all for many people.

Veryance wrote:
Having such a rigid stance on painting doesn't seem good for the hobby. I am pretty new, and I'm slowly getting my army painted, but when I was still in the throes of assembly, I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.
One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

If the rules of the tournament clearly state that WYSIWYG and painted minis are required, why I am the "socially inept clown" that is upset when my opponent did not field a painted, WYSIWYG army? I sacrificed weekend time with my wife, skipped out on events I enjoy, and made other sacrifices to meet the tournament requirements and make sure my gak looks good (runner up best painted in 2 events).

I'm not talking about pick-up games at an FLGS. That's goal post moving in this thread about tournament play. I have and will continue to play against the unpainted masses at FLGS pickup games with no issues.

Just my 2 cents.

Veryance wrote:

One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

Lacking empathy and understanding someone else's point of view is a sign of someone who is 'socially inept'. Your inability to understand why people want to play against painted models, especially large expensive events, and the trivializing of the impact it has on the game shows you lack the capacity for basic human empathy. And thinking you have the right to show up at an event and disregard any random rule you see as 'not valid' shows you don't understand basic social contracts or respect your fellow players.

See, I understand the WIP painter, and the 'I hate to Paint' and I even understand the 'I don't paint so I can army hop and keep resale value'. I think there should be places for them, like local gaming, or smaller RTT style events. I think everyone should have places where they can play and different events with different standards for different people. No one is calling for a ban of unpainted models at *ALL* events, just that events who have it as a requirement should be respected and shouldn't have entitled people show up and demand to play knowing the rules.

On the other hand, you are demanding all events cater to your wants and refuse to acknowledge any other POV exist or are valid. That screams socially inept clown and prick as someone who doesn't understand human interaction and wants 100% of things to cater to him personally and not accept other events exist which are not for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veryance wrote:
I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.

And if I hadn't gone to the GW GTs in the late 90s where they required painting and saw amazing armies as far as the eye could see, I can say unequivocally that it would have souered me on organized play, and spending extreme money and effort on a hobby which is a trashy mess at the highest levels.

And I do know people whose first experiences with 'organized play' were the 'ard boyz tournaments of the late 2000s, and that angry unpainted aggressive mess DID turn them off to organized play indefinitely.

You live in a world with humans who feel different from you and exist outside of your mind. There is no 'one true format' which is why people need to be mature enough to allow others to enjoy their hobby their way without demanding all events be run YOUR way. That means some events will require painting and you would be disallowed from them. If the simple fact there are events somewhere enjoying warhammer 'the wrong way' and theoretically disallowing you bothers you, that is a personal issue. Just find the events which play the way you wish to play and move on with your life. Stop demanding 'all events should cater to me personally' and throwing insults at people who disagree with the 'one true tourney format' you have decided on.

Lacking empathy and understanding someone else's point of view is a sign of someone who is 'socially inept'.

One can understand a point of view and still deem it to be totally unreasonable. Being unable to enjoy a game because someone else's toy soldiers are not painted to an arbitrary standard of quality may or may not fall into that bucket. YMMV.

Stop demanding 'all events should cater to me personally' and throwing insults at people who disagree with the 'one true tourney format' you have decided on.

Considering that I'm of the position that it doesn't matter, and you think it desperately does, perhaps we can take a moment to appreciate the irony of that statement.

I would respond to the other posters above me, but I ultimately have no dog in this fight. If your enjoyment of your hobby is entirely predicated on someone else adhering to some arbitrary restriction, then I all I feel for you is pity.

Anything to win. Oh, I would do anything to win.

I would do anything to win, but I won't paint that
No, I won't paint that. ~







But really Its your models, but its their Tournament.
They want it to be painted so everyone can enjoy it.

LoadToad wrote:
It takes 5 minutes to paint a small based model. Just do it.

Only if it's an awful paint job. Even assembly lining it, my basic Bloodletters take me at least 3 hours to do a squad of ten.

If someone brings a partially painted or a horribly painted army, then they get zero to minimal paint scores, thus they can not win overall at a GT even if they max/win all their games.

Those players deserve that punishment, best general is the most they can win. But why completely prohibit them from attending a GT? I think more GTs should allow unpainted armies.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
But why completely prohibit them from attending a GT?

Because playing against an unpainted army is a much less enjoyable experience. But sure, let's allow unpainted armies. For the sake of maintaining an enjoyable experience for the people who do put in at least a minimal amount of effort into painting we'll put all of the unpainted armies into a separate bracket where the winner gets the title "best of the gray horde" and the prize is a paintbrush.

Traditionally GTs were GW's event and GW wanted to promote all aspects of Teh HHHobby, which obviously includes painting. Thus a fully painted requirement was standard at GTs.

Why is painting a standard aspect of war games? The fact is that the majority of people who are interested in war games are interested in nice looking painted armies because nice looking painted armies have been a key attraction point of war games since ancient Egypt, as shown by these model soldiers from an ancient tomb.



It never mattered whether you painted the figures yourself, or bought ready painted figures. The point is that painted figures look nicer and that is what attracts people to play with them.

People who only want to play the rules, and aren't interested in painted armies, and play with unpainted armies, are a minority. They cannot reasonably expect the majority, who don't want to play with unpainted armies, to want to play with them.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

LoadToad wrote:
It takes 5 minutes to paint a small based model. Just do it.

Only if it's an awful paint job. Even assembly lining it, my basic Bloodletters take me at least 3 hours to do a squad of ten.

Whatever. Fully converted Blood Letter squad in 4 minutes.

Bases aren't finished yet.

Don't weigh me down with your pedantic painting expectations.

I saw the bloodletters at work and I laughed so hard I might be fired.